JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Pataudi, vide which the trial Court has declined to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Challenge is also to the order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurugram vide which the said order has been upheld.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the Gram Panchayat, BDPO Pataudi, SDO, Civil, Collector and State of Haryana on the plea that the plaintiff had built a house in Rect. no.33 of killa no.7 and the Gram Panchayat was proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of demarcation report which was not in accordance with law. It is submitted that the trial Court vide order dated 30.01.2024 did not grant ad-interim relief and thus, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed by the Ist Appellate Court vide order dated 18.02.2025. It is submitted that the order dated 18.02.2025 is against law and deserves to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted injunction from forcible dispossession, otherwise the suit of the petitioner would be rendered infructuous.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned orders dated 30.01.2024 and 18.02.2025 have been rightly passed and deserve to be upheld and the present petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Ist Appellate Court would show that it has been specifically recorded in the same that the Local Commissioner had visited the spot and had prepared a demarcation report in which several persons of the village including the Sarpanch and other panches of the village were present and several persons were stated to have encroached upon the land which included the present petitioner and his name was mentioned at serial no.23 of the report. It has further been observed that a petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the present petitioner and 13 other persons for removal of the encroachment and vide judgment dated 12.06.2019, the said application was allowed. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner was also a party to the said order and thus, has suffered an order of eviction under Section 7 of the Act. It has further not been disputed that no appeal was filed against the said order by the present petitioner although an appeal was filed by one Patram against the order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2023 and no further revision / appeal was filed by the said Patram against the said order which has also attained finality. Since the above said aspect has not been disputed, thus, on the said short ground alone, it is apparent that the petitioner does not have any prima facie case in his favour. The petitioner was a party to the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act and has suffered an order of eviction, which order has attained finality. The said order has not even been challenged in the present suit, and thus it is not even open to the petitioner to raise the plea that the said order is not binding or is not based upon a correct demarcation report.

5. The 1st Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has further noticed the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit against the Gram Panchayat for declarat